The White House said Tuesday that if President Joe Biden were presented with the bill, he would veto it. A Congress closely divided along party lines would be unlikely to overturn a veto, likely dooming the bill's chances this year.

It's an abrupt reversal for legislation that the Senate passed unanimously in August. But the GOP-led House waited until after the election to act on the measure, which spreads out the establishment of the new district judgeships over about a decade to give three presidential administrations the chance to appoint the new judges.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said the bill was negotiated with the understanding that three unknown, future presidents would have the chance to expand and shape the judiciary. No party would be knowingly given an advantage. He said he begged GOP leadership to take up the measure before the presidential election. But they did not do so.

"It was a fair fight and they wanted no part of it," Nadler said.

Rep. Jim Jordan, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, explained the timing this way: "We just didn't get to the legislation."

The change of heart about the bill from some Democrats and the new urgency from House Republicans for considering it underscores the contentious politics that surrounded federal judicial vacancies.

Senate roll-call votes are required for almost every judicial nominee these days, and most votes for the Supreme Court and appellate courts are now decided largely along party lines. Lawmakers are generally hesitant to hand presidents from the opposing party new opportunities to shape the judiciary.

Nadler said that the bill would give Trump 25 judicial nominations on top of the 100-plus spots that are expected to open up over the next four years.

"Donald Trump has made clear that he intends to expand the power of the presidency and giving him 25 new judges to appoint gives him one more tool at his disposal to do that," Nadler said.

Nadler said he's willing to take up comparable legislation in the years ahead and give the additional judicial appointments to "unknown presidents yet to come," but until then, he was urging colleagues to vote against the bill.

Still, few are arguing against the merits. Congress last authorized a new district judgeship more than 20 years ago, while the number of cases being filed continues to increase with litigants often waiting years for a resolution.

"I used to be a federal court litigator, and I can tell you it's desperately needed," House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said of the bill.

Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., first introduced the bill to establish new judgeships in 2020. Last year, the policy-making body for the federal court system, the Judicial Conference of the United States, recommended the creation of several new district and court of appeals judgeships to meet increased workload demands in certain courts.

"Judges work tirelessly every day to meet growing demands and resolve cases as quickly as possible, but with the volume we have and the shortage of judges we have, it just makes it a very difficult proposition," Judge Timothy Corrigan, of the Middle District of Florida, said in a recent blog post on the website of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

The blog post states that caseloads are creating delays that will erode public confidence in the judicial process, but the bill would meet many of the federal judiciary's needs for more judges.

Jordan said that as of June 30th, there were nearly 750,000 pending cases in federal district courts nationwide, with each judge handling an average of 554 filings. When asked if House Republicans would have brought the bill up if Vice President Kamala Harris had won the election, Jordan said the bill is "the right thing to do" and that almost half of the first batch of judges will come from states where both senators are Democrats, giving them a chance to provide input on those nominations before Trump makes them.

But in its veto threat, the White House Office of Management and Budget said the bill would create new judgeships in states where senators have sought to hold open existing judicial vacancies.

"These efforts to hold open vacancies suggest that concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of the law," the White House said.

Shortly before the White House issued the veto threat, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he would be curious to hear Biden's rationale for such action.

"It's almost inconceivable that a lame-duck president could consider vetoing such an obviously prudential step for any reason other than selfish spite," McConnell said.